Basically every newspaper endorsed Hillary (other than the National Enquirer, which barely counts as a newspaper and is owned by a personal friend of Trump). This thinking is shared with the vast majority of reporters as well. So your logic is lacking.

clkeagle:lucksi: it's harming the newspaper and printing industries that collectively employ 600,000 people while helping the Washington-based mill that employs only 300.

Then maybe those 600k people need to write bigger checks

Or vote for the party that might actually help them.

this is one of the problems with common folk (you know...) they cannot see the bigger picture and how all the parts move. It feels good to help out a small local thing, but cannot see the overall loss in the greater space of events. pawn sacrifice concepts.

Like my mother-in-law's opinion about Trumps crusade to save the coal industry...I tried to point out that relatively, it employs very few people compared to say fast-food workers, where an increase in minimum wage would benefit thousands of more people than helping out the coal workers. Didn't matter, "at least he cares about jobs"

these people would hire a security guard at $100 a day to try and prevent $5 of daily loss due to theft if they ran a store.

Basically every newspaper endorsed Hillary (other than the National Enquirer, which barely counts as a newspaper and is owned by a personal friend of Trump). This thinking is shared with the vast majority of reporters as well. So your logic is lacking.

I wasn't claiming the news staff let them in by supporting trump - only that"someone let leopards in the newsroom".

Hyjamon:clkeagle: lucksi: it's harming the newspaper and printing industries that collectively employ 600,000 people while helping the Washington-based mill that employs only 300.

Then maybe those 600k people need to write bigger checks

Or vote for the party that might actually help them.

this is one of the problems with common folk (you know...) they cannot see the bigger picture and how all the parts move. It feels good to help out a small local thing, but cannot see the overall loss in the greater space of events. pawn sacrifice concepts.

Like my mother-in-law's opinion about Trumps crusade to save the coal industry...I tried to point out that relatively, it employs very few people compared to say fast-food workers, where an increase in minimum wage would benefit thousands of more people than helping out the coal workers. Didn't matter, "at least he cares about jobs"

these people would hire a security guard at $100 a day to try and prevent $5 of daily loss due to theft if they ran a store.

There is a big storm brewing here in the US. The tariffs have yet to trickle down in the form of inflation and job losses. The GDP is sputtering. Our President is alienating our major trade and military partners. I just read in the latest issue of the New Yorker, an article by David Remnick (the editor in Chief), that President Trump threw candy at Angela Merkel and told her never to say he didn't give her anything. This public display of contempt will probably cost the US bigly. The global economy is a massive thing, so next year expect some serious volatility and economic upheaval as we are left out of trade agreements and our economy suffers. But thankfully white supremacists can now openly mock latino infants and toddlers which totally makes it all worth it, right?

Basically every newspaper endorsed Hillary (other than the National Enquirer, which barely counts as a newspaper and is owned by a personal friend of Trump). This thinking is shared with the vast majority of reporters as well. So your logic is lacking.

I mean good grief "endorsed" is putting it mildly. The media narrative all through the campaign was that Hillary's well-oiled machine was going to cruise to victory, anyone who questioned that was a crank. The behind-the-scenes book by reporters embedded in the campaign reveal the Dems knew full well that was not true, so obviously the media did too.